T
Tim Chown
Guest
The Trust is also writing to James Brent today, having not had a response as yet to a request to meet the club to discuss the problems.
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
John,
I am very sad that you are withdrawing - as you are aware I am one of the other candidates for the PASB and I feel the only way to 'fight' is from within.
As I am sure you are aware that the first year it is an "Interim Board" so all these problems of setting up the board can be ironed out by the PASB rather than by the Club.
I thought that after all the "Steering Group" meetings that the rest of it, setting up the PASB, etc would run smoothly and openly. Sadly not so!!
To re-iterate - the only way to sort all of this out is from within.
I don't mean to sound as a PASB member already - I await the results.
Good Luck to all candidates
Personally - away out of the country tomorrow, Tuesday until Tuesday next week, but will still be eagerly watching developments 'on-line'
Best Regards
Alan Barry
Green+ Member
Senior Citizen
AFT Member No 622
I am very sad that you are withdrawing - as you are aware I am one of the other candidates for the PASB and I feel the only way to 'fight' is from within.
As I am sure you are aware that the first year it is an "Interim Board" so all these problems of setting up the board can be ironed out by the PASB rather than by the Club.
I thought that after all the "Steering Group" meetings that the rest of it, setting up the PASB, etc would run smoothly and openly. Sadly not so!!
To re-iterate - the only way to sort all of this out is from within.
I don't mean to sound as a PASB member already - I await the results.
Good Luck to all candidates
Personally - away out of the country tomorrow, Tuesday until Tuesday next week, but will still be eagerly watching developments 'on-line'
Best Regards
Alan Barry
Green+ Member
Senior Citizen
AFT Member No 622
Semaphore05":18rb5i7f said:
As has been previously suggested, perhaps the initial PASB should be formed only from the 6 supporters' groups members as they at least have some form of legitimacy.
Regrettably anyone elected through the members' vote will inevitably get the "how many 5 year olds voted for you then" comments.
This would at least get the thing moving, with proper elections held within say three months to bring the PASB up to full strength.
L
Lee Jameson
Guest
John,
I admire your stance on this, but as papers have been sent out how can you withdraw?
I think that if elected you will just have to refuse to take up you position on the PASB.
I know people that who have already voted for you!!
I admire your stance on this, but as papers have been sent out how can you withdraw?
I think that if elected you will just have to refuse to take up you position on the PASB.
I know people that who have already voted for you!!
This is a tricky one for me - a more complex issue than it first appears in some ways.
And me being me, I've got a slightly alternative view (albeit it would be easier & perhaps more popular to robustly support the OP).
I would also emphasise (as I've said many times!) that I've never seen elections as an appropriate tool to form the PASB (it should be about ability, not popularity).
Anyway, there seems to be some 'givens' here; the development & implementation of the PASB concept having hit hurdle after hurdle being the most obvious.
Yet when each of these issues are broken down, I think that the cause of all of them is consistently one of problems with communication.
Take today's headline issue as reported; that 5 year olds & under can vote in the PASB election & that this is such a sizeable catastrophe (particularly when you look back over your shoulder & see the long straight of collapsed hurdles behind), that it is 'the final straw'.
On the face if it, the situation is of course farcical. Indeed I too have reacted with some incredulity to this headline. But thinking it through it is also of course, improbable that our youngest of youngsters will independently vote; their voting slips will be filled out in most cases by their parents, effectively giving the season ticket holding parents more than one vote. And this too would be a headline problem I'm sure.
Yet coming back to the potential cause of these problems - communication - if the creation of the PASB had been planned in more detail, this could have been described in a different way whereby even if we didn't agree, we could see the argument. The accompanying narrative could have read "To respect & give proportionate representation to those families that have invested more into the club by taking up several memberships, it has been decided that households will be given PASB votes commensurate with the about of memberships held. To help with the accompanying administration only, voting papers will be sent to each named member (even to our most junior of fans)".
Of course this didn't happen, but would have at least to a degree, mitigated future disquiet.
So what now?
Well, to say our current position is pretty poor is an understatement. Much of our online fan base (of which I am an active participant!) is whirling around about the problems with increasing speed & angst, as tends to happen on the Internet. For this cohort of us, it is rare to ever agree a solution to anything whereby only a light touch could be taken. We tend to need action, need it now & need it to be pretty strong.
Our Trust (again I emphasise of which I'm a proud member) has reacted accordingly. An exceptionally strong (& critical) press release calling for the cancellation of the elections was released at midnight before a match without any prior dialogue with the club. This has now been reinforced by the withdrawal of a prominent Trust members from his PASB candidacy.
Although I can very much see the Trust's standpoint & support their active involvement in the process I wonder, a week on, as to the long term benefit of their specific actions taken. In some ways, the Trust may have been sucked into the same type of behaviour that has typified the journey of the PASB to date; hasty actions without wider consultation could be the accusation.
Given the objectives of both the Trust & the club regarding fan involvement, I am concerned that, particularly given today's news, that relationships may have been markedly damaged & to be honest, I can see why (from both sides).
From the club's perspective, it is clear that the majority of the problems regarding communication lays with it. Yet I wonder, why is this?
My view (as ever, for what it's worth) is that having set up the PASB concept as one of independence; one free from the control of the club, it has found the conflicts of independence, involvement & direction one that has been almost impossible to balance.
If the club were to get 'hands on' today, I wonder how long it would take before accusations of undue influence would surface? I genuinely don't know the answer to this. As such, I can see that the club sees itself as being in a 'damned if you don't, damned if you do' situation. And it probably is.
So for me & my health alone, I need to look at the long term aim & objectives of what we're trying to achieve; real - thats real - fan involvement with the running of our club.
I've outlined my thoughts about how a joined up approach from the PASB & Trust could work before so won't (you'll be pleased to know) rehearse them further.
So what I'd like to see now is for all of the candidates to sit down together & discuss how best to achieve our aim & objectives. This should in my view include the wider Trust & may be something they could pull together.
Thoughts, suggestions, proposals & where appropriate requirements could then be put to the club to help us move forward.
I would hope that this suggestion would provide the measured, constructive approach that I'm sure would be agreeable to all & be useful to the successful operation of our still struggling-to-recover football club.
There must be a real threat now that the PASB idea will be pulled by the club. If it does, I genuinely think we will have lost an opportunity to actively & usefully participate in the governance of our club. I also suspect that given what has happened, it would be folly to think that the Trust would be invited to fill the void for some time to come.
Which would be a bloody shame.
So for me, the here & now should be about building bridges & identifying how to work together; not about further fortifying enemy lines.
And me being me, I've got a slightly alternative view (albeit it would be easier & perhaps more popular to robustly support the OP).
I would also emphasise (as I've said many times!) that I've never seen elections as an appropriate tool to form the PASB (it should be about ability, not popularity).
Anyway, there seems to be some 'givens' here; the development & implementation of the PASB concept having hit hurdle after hurdle being the most obvious.
Yet when each of these issues are broken down, I think that the cause of all of them is consistently one of problems with communication.
Take today's headline issue as reported; that 5 year olds & under can vote in the PASB election & that this is such a sizeable catastrophe (particularly when you look back over your shoulder & see the long straight of collapsed hurdles behind), that it is 'the final straw'.
On the face if it, the situation is of course farcical. Indeed I too have reacted with some incredulity to this headline. But thinking it through it is also of course, improbable that our youngest of youngsters will independently vote; their voting slips will be filled out in most cases by their parents, effectively giving the season ticket holding parents more than one vote. And this too would be a headline problem I'm sure.
Yet coming back to the potential cause of these problems - communication - if the creation of the PASB had been planned in more detail, this could have been described in a different way whereby even if we didn't agree, we could see the argument. The accompanying narrative could have read "To respect & give proportionate representation to those families that have invested more into the club by taking up several memberships, it has been decided that households will be given PASB votes commensurate with the about of memberships held. To help with the accompanying administration only, voting papers will be sent to each named member (even to our most junior of fans)".
Of course this didn't happen, but would have at least to a degree, mitigated future disquiet.
So what now?
Well, to say our current position is pretty poor is an understatement. Much of our online fan base (of which I am an active participant!) is whirling around about the problems with increasing speed & angst, as tends to happen on the Internet. For this cohort of us, it is rare to ever agree a solution to anything whereby only a light touch could be taken. We tend to need action, need it now & need it to be pretty strong.
Our Trust (again I emphasise of which I'm a proud member) has reacted accordingly. An exceptionally strong (& critical) press release calling for the cancellation of the elections was released at midnight before a match without any prior dialogue with the club. This has now been reinforced by the withdrawal of a prominent Trust members from his PASB candidacy.
Although I can very much see the Trust's standpoint & support their active involvement in the process I wonder, a week on, as to the long term benefit of their specific actions taken. In some ways, the Trust may have been sucked into the same type of behaviour that has typified the journey of the PASB to date; hasty actions without wider consultation could be the accusation.
Given the objectives of both the Trust & the club regarding fan involvement, I am concerned that, particularly given today's news, that relationships may have been markedly damaged & to be honest, I can see why (from both sides).
From the club's perspective, it is clear that the majority of the problems regarding communication lays with it. Yet I wonder, why is this?
My view (as ever, for what it's worth) is that having set up the PASB concept as one of independence; one free from the control of the club, it has found the conflicts of independence, involvement & direction one that has been almost impossible to balance.
If the club were to get 'hands on' today, I wonder how long it would take before accusations of undue influence would surface? I genuinely don't know the answer to this. As such, I can see that the club sees itself as being in a 'damned if you don't, damned if you do' situation. And it probably is.
So for me & my health alone, I need to look at the long term aim & objectives of what we're trying to achieve; real - thats real - fan involvement with the running of our club.
I've outlined my thoughts about how a joined up approach from the PASB & Trust could work before so won't (you'll be pleased to know) rehearse them further.
So what I'd like to see now is for all of the candidates to sit down together & discuss how best to achieve our aim & objectives. This should in my view include the wider Trust & may be something they could pull together.
Thoughts, suggestions, proposals & where appropriate requirements could then be put to the club to help us move forward.
I would hope that this suggestion would provide the measured, constructive approach that I'm sure would be agreeable to all & be useful to the successful operation of our still struggling-to-recover football club.
There must be a real threat now that the PASB idea will be pulled by the club. If it does, I genuinely think we will have lost an opportunity to actively & usefully participate in the governance of our club. I also suspect that given what has happened, it would be folly to think that the Trust would be invited to fill the void for some time to come.
Which would be a bloody shame.
So for me, the here & now should be about building bridges & identifying how to work together; not about further fortifying enemy lines.
L
Lee Jameson
Guest
Why should the onus be put on Mr Brent?
The Trust and other bodies should get together and say they are willing to take over the process, let the supporters decide but we the supporters will have to do the work. The PASB is for us so let's not make demands of the club let's take this on.
As much as I have had reservations about the process I bet Mr Brent wishes he never gave us this once in a life time opportunity. Pass ideas on to the club tell them how you would have done and how you would take it forward.
This is new instead of people having a go let's get together to make the process work.
The Trust and other bodies should get together and say they are willing to take over the process, let the supporters decide but we the supporters will have to do the work. The PASB is for us so let's not make demands of the club let's take this on.
As much as I have had reservations about the process I bet Mr Brent wishes he never gave us this once in a life time opportunity. Pass ideas on to the club tell them how you would have done and how you would take it forward.
This is new instead of people having a go let's get together to make the process work.
T
Tim Chown
Guest
Lee Jameson":amivwtvi said:
That's essentially what the Trust is proposing to facilitate Lee.
That can still embrace Club Members, POTD, supporter groups and anyone else, be they Trust members or otherwise. At the moment we believe everyone involved in the election happens to be a member of at least one supporter group, and the large majority are Trust members, but that need not always be the case.
Tim
- Nov 17, 2009
- 4,124
- 116
JonB
I take your point "if the club should get involved now" it would give the doom mongers more ammunition, never the less the club should have been more visible from the start, there should have been a high level employee seeing this through until the PASB was up and running, that person would have been the spokesman for the club, if this is how they are going to act before the board is up and running, what hope is there if it ever gets off the ground.
This last fiasco does the club no good at all, at the minute it is a shambles, the club is rudderless off and on the pitch.
If all candidates followed John Petrie the club would have to sit up and take notice.
The sooner the club employs the likes of a Mike Durnford someone with a football background can't see any hope there will be an improvement.
I take your point "if the club should get involved now" it would give the doom mongers more ammunition, never the less the club should have been more visible from the start, there should have been a high level employee seeing this through until the PASB was up and running, that person would have been the spokesman for the club, if this is how they are going to act before the board is up and running, what hope is there if it ever gets off the ground.
This last fiasco does the club no good at all, at the minute it is a shambles, the club is rudderless off and on the pitch.
If all candidates followed John Petrie the club would have to sit up and take notice.
The sooner the club employs the likes of a Mike Durnford someone with a football background can't see any hope there will be an improvement.
Keepitgreen
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
♣️ PACSA Member
♣️ Senior Greens
✅ Evergreen
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
I can only echo that. A man of principals. I had been in 2 minds whether to vote or not anyway as the PASB is not something I believe we need. I'm a great believer in the Trust and at least that's open to everyone, albeit for £10 a year but no Argyle supporter is excluded from joining. With the PASB if you're a pay on the day'er you don't get any say unless you belong to any of the other groups. I'd like to see all candidates have the same principles as John and stand down but I'm realistic enough to know some want it more than others.Wozzer":3lgf8ykz said:
As an aside has anyone discussed with the ERS the legality of the process now that under 18s have been issued with voting forms. 18 being the legal age to take part in any public election. I suppose the question would be; Is this classed as a public election?
Not all junior members are 5 year olds, some are competent 16/17 year olds, do they not deserve to vote as well then? Don't we want a representative opinion of the whole fan base? Oh no I forgot were only children why would our opinions count...
G
Green Monk
Guest
Are we really comparing a proper parliament election to voting in six people to a fans group of a L2 football club? Strewth!
The juniors have a membership so let them vote and feel part of the club.
The juniors have a membership so let them vote and feel part of the club.
T
Tim Chown
Guest
TomD0407":12hud1au said:
Hi Tom,
Anyone 16 or over can be a full Fans' Trust member, vote in our elections, and with a recent change now also stand to be a board member (it used to be 18 or over). See our rules, sections 10 and 14.
It could be a different discussion if the club were to propose a 'Young Supporters Board' for U16's to stand and vote amongst themselves, as a means of engaging more with the Junior Members.
Tim
